So Apparently The Rumor Is Kovy Could Be Coming Back

[NJDevs4978]

Kovy's leaving was a situation that was far beyond a home sick player wanting to leave for the Motherland.  Him "retiring" was beneficial to multiple parties, especially Bettman and the NHL.  The last thing the League wanted was the team possibly being moved.(Yes, people have enough dough in the World to make it happen, i.e. Clippers)  Gary didn't want the team to go into bankruptcy, for many reasons.(hurting the value of the existing franchises, hurting the fees for new franchises, being a creditor themselves, bad PR for a major market area, etc.)  I really think the sale was contingent on Kovy going back with not only the league's blessing, but mandate. They knew he was more than willing to go home, especially for the Olympics.(I won't even discuss the geopolitical angle there.)  Now you can say, that is really some conspiracy type crap there, but the last thing Gary wanted was another unsettled team going into, what I believe to be a large expansion in the next few years.

 

Now if Lou doesn't use his last compliance buyout, I believe that these Kovy rumors may be true.  If the League has a frank conversation with all the team owners/management and says that the Devils could have used the compliance buyout for Kovy last season and that he could have then gone to the KHL, just as he did, and then he could have resigned with NJ the following year anyway. (this summer) So all in all, the moves were done to save a team from ruin, which was in all of their own best interest.  These owners know if they had to take on the Devils like they did the Coyotes, they would be losing money and a lot of it.  And if you ever been around people of this ilk, they don't wanna lose money...ever.

 

I guess we will see, but with NJ's limited resources to acquire any additional talent, especially since it seems Schneids is here to stay, Kovy returning could be a good thing as long as the dollars and terms make sense.

 

The Devils would have literally had to pay Kovy over fifty million in hard cash to do a compliance buyout.  There's no circumstance where that would have happened. 

[mfitz804]

If he does come back here, I'll be convinced that his initial departure was collusion to get the Devils out of that contract.

Yup, this.

I'd take him back for a 3-4 year deal. He would be booed mercilessly until he did some good.

[Devilsfan118]

I'd take him back, so long as the league doesn't fine the Devils for another 1st round pick.  Can't sacrifice any more of the future for a mercenary like Kovy.

[mfitz804]

Yeah, it would have to be without a penalty for it to be worth it.

[Neb00rs]

No way 29 teams approve. That would set a bad precedent. This story was dead in the water the second it hit twitter.

 

Not that I think it will be easy to get no name back in the league but your perception of 'precdent' is flawed. There are also implications and perhaps stronger precedent set by blocking the Devils from bringing no name back.

[thecoffeecake]

How could any owner be so petty as to not allow him back into the league?

[Triumph]

If they didn't find a buyer, what was going happen? The team was up against it for sure.  

 

Never said the other GM's were going to agree to it.  In fact ,I only think it can be brought up as now as, hey they could of used the buy out anyway, he went away for a year anyway, so in that regard it could be argued that there isn't much difference.  Last summer's actions were instrumental in getting the franchise into what appears to be very solid hands, which makes everyone more money in the long run.  Never discount greed.

 

And as far as making anything up, it pretty damn obvious no one has the absolute inside track on this, so of course you need to develop a narrative of some sort to see what MAY be in play, how it MAY work. 

 

Nearly everyone(not I) here said there was no way the team was getting that draft pick back either.  We will know shortly.  

 

Your interpretation of events is this:

 

Harris and Blitzer say to Vanderbeek - we will buy the team, but we will not buy it with Kovalchuk on it.  So does Barroway, too, I guess.  Okay, well, Vanderbeek scrambles.  The compliance buyout window has probably already passed at this point.  He goes to Kovalchuk with this great plan:  Just walk away from your contract.  Oh, okay, Kovalchuk says, I want to go back to Russia anyway because of the Olympics.  So sure, I'll do it!  Wait, can I come back?  Oh sure, Harris and Blitzer say, after a year, come right on back, we'll sign you to a new contract.  Even though all the other NHL teams have to agree, and you have absolutely no leverage since you can't sign with anyone else.  They will agree, though, because the alternative is the league owning the Devils (and also the building), which apparently would lose the league lots of money, and they'd hate that, even though they lost money on the Coyotes for years when they could've easily sold them to someone who could've moved them to a new city and made them money.

 

It doesn't make any sense at all.  The most logical series of events is that Kovalchuk liked playing in the KHL, he was unhappy about the lockout, he came back and played for the one year, didn't like it, and wanted to go back to Russia so badly that he basically closed the door on him playing in the NHL for several years, if not ever.

[lazer]

something about KHL and prohkorov

[DH26]

How could any owner be so petty as to not allow him back into the league?

 

because they don't want their players to walk away and just think they can come back later. If you leave you're gone 

[mfitz804]

Randy Miller cited Bill Daly which explains everything pretty well. 

 

1. Unless Kovalchuk sits out a full season of professional hockey anywhere in the world, he cannot return to the NHL without consent from all 30 franchises until 2018-19.

2. If Kovalchuk sits out a full season of pro hockey, he can only return with the Devils’ consent until 2018-19.

3. Beginning in 2018-19, Kovalchuk will be 35, removed from the league’s voluntary retirement list and free to sign with any NHL team as a free agent.

Not doubting this, but why would the NHL require that he sit out of ALL leagues? Makes it hard to believe that this is factually accurate. Especially being that he is one of if not the single most elite player NOTin the NHL, I'd think the NHL would want him back.

[Devil Dan 56]

How could any owner be so petty as to not allow him back into the league?

 

Why would a rival team do any favors for someone in their division?

[RizzMB30]

It doesn't make any sense at all.  The most logical series of events is that Kovalchuk liked playing in the KHL, he was unhappy about the lockout, he came back and played for the one year, didn't like it, and wanted to go back to Russia so badly that he basically closed the door on him playing in the NHL for several years, if not ever.

This, accept it.  Kovalchuk is a quitter.  If he pulled this stunt when he was 36 or 38, hell yeah, quit/retire away!  He did in while in the prime of his career, a year after the Devils went to the SCF.  He sees the team sinking, HATE the lockout, and QUIT.   Q-U-I-T  You don't make that decision and then get to change your mind.

 

Not doubting this, but why would the NHL require that he sit out of ALL leagues? Makes it hard to believe that this is factually accurate. Especially being that he is one of if not the single most elite player NOTin the NHL, I'd think the NHL would want him back.

You're not thinking straight.  If you're the Rangers, Penguins, Flyers GM, and your RIVAL team comes to you and says, "Hey, this guy retired from the league, but we want him back on the Devils."  The very thing I bolded is the exact reason that no GM in his right mind would allow it,  ESPECIALLY if there's no chance of Kovalchuk coming to their respective teams.

[mfitz804]

No, I get what you are saying. I was questioning why the league would require he sit out if ALL hockey for a year for it just to be the Devils' decision. Why allow the teams a vote based on whether he played in some lesser league or not?

[devilsadvoc8]

Too much of a circus, imo.  It would be a band-aid at best and a team killer at worst.  The team got quite lucky in the way it turned out.  Walk away Lou, walk away.

[devilsrule33]

Well a fun distraction for a day during the Devils off-season. That's a wrap folks.

[mouse]

Terms have to be right -- we just got out from under that albatross of a contract. I think Lou is forgiving, which is probably a good quality here, but Kovy would have to be willing to take less money.

[Z-Man]

Dino Costa got caught publishing other writers' articles on his website with new headlines, and no credit to the original writers.  This guy has less than zero credibility.  When someone who's worth a damn starts to discuss it, I'll listen.

 

http://awfulannouncing.com/2014/dino-costas-website-is-plagiarizing-everyone-in-sports-including-us.html

[devilsrule33]

Dino Costa got caught publishing other writers' articles on his website with new headlines, and no credit to the original writers.  This guy has less than zero credibility.  When someone who's worth a damn starts to discuss it, I'll listen.

 

http://awfulannouncing.com/2014/dino-costas-website-is-plagiarizing-everyone-in-sports-including-us.html

 

I read that at the time but totally forgot the name. Shame that I did or I would have been glad to put the kibosh on this earlier.

 

This guy is a fraud, 100%. But just like many fake insiders have shown, you can create intrigue and hope and interest without an ounce of credibility to your name 

[Mitico12]

This is actually a good point, but TG just said that if he wanted to come back this coming season, all 30 teams would unanimously need to OK it. I cannot see every team in the league voting for it regardless of the PR battle. I don't see Snider or Dolan siding with the Devils. 

 

Siding from a personal point of view, no.  But when your owners carry influence, sometimes other owners cater to them.  Blitzer and Harris probably have influence and so it may not be far fetched that they let Kovy back as a favor to them.

[Daniel]

This is actually a good point, but TG just said that if he wanted to come back this coming season, all 30 teams would unanimously need to OK it. I cannot see every team in the league voting for it regardless of the PR battle. I don't see Snider or Dolan siding with the Devils. 

 

This all comes from memory, so I might be completely off, but I think it's possible that the NHL by-laws, which is where I think the 30 owner consent requirement comes from, are not so ironclad. 

 

When Kovy first announced his retirement from the NHL, I took a brief look at the NHL bylaws to see what they had to say about reversing the cap circumvention penalty.  Lo and behold, there was something about the Board of Governors, which consists of representatives from all 30 teams, needing to approve the reversal of a penalty.  We know now that Bettman unilaterally modified the punishment.  So I suppose it's possible that there's something in the bylaws that allows Bettman to pull rank on everyone in this instance.

 

EDIT:

Edited June 10, 2014 by Daniel

[Devil Dan 56]

Dino Costa got caught publishing other writers' articles on his website with new headlines, and no credit to the original writers.  This guy has less than zero credibility.  When someone who's worth a damn starts to discuss it, I'll listen.

 

http://awfulannouncing.com/2014/dino-costas-website-is-plagiarizing-everyone-in-sports-including-us.html

 

Wow. So just another Incarcerated Bob-level hack. Oh well.

[Daniel]

Well, I went ahead and took a look at the By-Laws and Constitution that are online.  I should note that the version I have was effective only as late as 2009, so it's possible that there have been amendments.  Anyway, I think, despite the recent media reports, they could be read to allow someone like Kovy back in after one year from the date of his retirement without 30 owner consent and without him having to sit out from hockey for a year.

 

The section that TG and others have been relying on says:  "A player whose name has been entered on the Voluntarily Retired List shall not be removed from that list within one calendar year of such entry or within one calendar year from his cessation of playing hockey for any team in any professional league in North America or on a professional or amateur team outside of North American, whichever is later, without the unanimous consent of all Member Clubs".  Seems pretty ironclad.

 

However, the very next section says:  "[T]he Club on whose Voluntarily Retired List a player's name has been registered may transfer his name back on its Reserve List at any time after the expiry of one year from the date of registration on the Voluntarily Retired List by filing any currently valid contract, option, or try out".  It doesn't appear that the term "valid contract" is defined, or if it is, I don't have the inclination to look for it since the document I have isn't searchable.  At the very least though, this could mean that the Devils could unilaterally bring back Kovy a year from his retirement date, but on the same terms as the contract he had at the time.  Fat chance at that, but I suppose it's not completely beyond the realm of possibility that the Devils, at least internally are weighing whether the money is there to pay out the real contract dollars and whether the team can absorb the cap hit, including potential recapture penalties down the road. 

 

The hook though comes from the Constitution, which give the Commissioner the "authority to interpret, and from time to time establish policies and procedures regarding, the provisions of [ ] the By-Laws [ ] and their application and enforcement.  Any determination made by the Commissioner with respect to any such mater shall be final and binding and shall not be subject to any review". 

 

So ultimately it seems that Bettman can unilaterally approve Kovy's return notwithstanding what the By-Laws say.  He runs the risk of pissing off the rest of the owners to the point that he gets fired, but that seems to be the only recourse. 

[Joonas #6]

Guys, I'm sure he is coming back to the NHL. Why? Because I'd finally have the chance to see him play in my country next season when his KHL team plays against the Jokerit in Helsinki. 

[Triumph]

I think you're interpreting that loosely, Daniel - here's how I would read it, that the first clause you quoted governs the second.  So this is the case:  "A player whose name has been entered on the Voluntarily Retired List shall not be removed from that list within one calendar year of such entry or within one calendar year from his cessation of playing hockey for any team in any professional league in North America or on a professional or amateur team outside of North American, whichever is later, without the unanimous consent of all Member Clubs"  So this is simply true, and like you said, ironclad.  The second clause lacks the conditional phrase which I will now supply in brackets: '[Provided the player does sit out one year, or has been unanimously allowed to return to the league despite having played in a professional or amateur league more recently than one year ago], [T]he Club on whose Voluntarily Retired List a player's name has been registered may transfer his name back on its Reserve List at any time after the expiry of one year from the date of registration on the Voluntarily Retired List by filing any currently valid contract, option, or try out."

 

The second clause you cited to me just seems to be procedural - in the event that a player wishes to unretire, and is allowed entry back into the league, and his old club wishes to sign him, here is what happens.  Otherwise the second clause just negates the first outright, and that doesn't make sense.  I'm trying to think of a player that did this, any help?  It's hard to think of players who retired with valid contracts.

Edited June 10, 2014 by Triumph

[Daniel]

I think you're interpreting that loosely, Daniel - here's how I would read it, that the first clause you quoted governs the second.  So this is the case:  "A player whose name has been entered on the Voluntarily Retired List shall not be removed from that list within one calendar year of such entry or within one calendar year from his cessation of playing hockey for any team in any professional league in North America or on a professional or amateur team outside of North American, whichever is later, without the unanimous consent of all Member Clubs"  So this is simply true, and like you said, ironclad.  The second clause lacks the conditional phrase which I will now supply in brackets: '[Provided the player does sit out one year, or has been unanimously allowed to return to the league despite having played in a professional or amateur league more recently than one year ago], [T]he Club on whose Voluntarily Retired List a player's name has been registered may transfer his name back on its Reserve List at any time after the expiry of one year from the date of registration on the Voluntarily Retired List by filing any currently valid contract, option, or try out."

 

The second clause you cited to me just seems to be procedural - in the event that a player wishes to unretire, and is allowed entry back into the league, and his old club wishes to sign him, here is what happens.  Otherwise the second clause just negates the first outright, and that doesn't make sense.  I'm trying to think of a player that did this, any help?  It's hard to think of players who retired with valid contracts.

 

I thought about that, but I don't think my reading necessarily negates the first clause. For instance, a player retires with only a year left on his deal, and remains retired for a couple of years after his contract would have otherwise expired before he decides to make a go at a comeback, sort of like Rafalski.  Or, even better, it might be someone that would otherwise have an existing contract, but wants to come back on a new deal.  That's where the first clause comes in.  The second clause applies when a player and the team wants the player to come back on the terms of his existing contract.  So, if you wanted to give more credit to Costa than he deserves, it's possible that's at least what the Devils are "discussing". 

 

Note that if this were being interpreted by a court I would definitely say your view wins out.  But ultimately, it's up to the Commissioner who doesn't have to worry about appeals courts, and the like.  I mean, I didn't imagine that the Devils could be penalized for cap circumvention notwithstanding the ruling of the arbitrator, as that was clearly meant to punish under the table dealings, but Bettman thought otherwise.

 

EDIT:  Your view would also make the phrase in the second clause "at any time after the expiry of one year" superfluous, as it could have just said something to the effect of: "in the event that a player is eliglble for reinstatement in accordance with the first clause..." here's how it's handled.

 

But yeah, the ambiguity comes from the fact that the By-Laws were probably written before you started seeing the front loaded long term deals, so no one thought it would be an issue.  That's why it's also possible that the By-Laws have been amended. 

Edited June 10, 2014 by Daniel